Important Announcement: Come break the ice

Some of you have asked in the past about a forum for Houston-based folks interested in science to meet up. Well, here’s your chance, and what better to talk about than global warming on the eve of hurricane season? I present:

I will moderate a discussion between guests and the following climate researchers:

There is no charge to attend the event, which the Houston Museum of Natural Science is graciously hosting in its Wiess Energy Hall. I will give the participating scientists a few minutes to provide a brief overview of their research, and then we’ll open the floor for a general discussion.

The issues, topics and questions that come up will largely come from you. This will be informal and is intended for a general audience. It will be a two-way discussion. And it’s my hope that it will be polite, informative and useful for all.

I realize the time may be inconvenient for everyone, and for that I apologize. Symbolically I thought it would be fun to hold the forum on the first day of hurricane season, and an afternoon slot is the only time that accommodated the schedules of the participants and museum.

79 Responses

Thanks Dr. D., I would love to have a science fact based debate, pity it started out the wrong way, let me recap:

When I said: “I am very familiar with Dr. D’s preconceived notions on AGW”,

You said: “Dr. J is faced with a difficult dilemma. In a blog format, someone with no knowledge on an issue can enter a debate and not look like a fool. In face-to-face interactions, however, such people are readily unmasked.” And:

“I’d be happy to take the opportunity to explain some climate science to him”. And of course: “it is difficult for Eric to get a “diversity” of opinion on this issue, just as it would be difficult to get a diversity of opinion on the issue of whether smoking causes cancer.” Hummmm…

Sensing no respect for me or my intellectual capacity (wonder where I got that?), I then said:

“you obviously think me an uneducated blog troll”. And: “By saying that it is “difficult” for Eric to find any scientist who would disagree with IPCC and the pro-AGW hysterics, since it is just so overwhelmingly clear and immutable science, you use the stock talking points and tactics of the “political” scientists who have been doing this for years, not to mention Hollywood, Algore and many others.”

You then retorted: “Some of your comments are so monumentally misinformed.” And: “the first sign that you’ve run out of legitimate arguments is when you try to paint your opponent as biased or corrupt. Your attempt to link me to Hollywood simply shows the hollowness and lack of credibility of your position.”

I then observed and documented the hypocrisy of that statement.

But now, let start afresh. I think you are quite familiar with my issues with the IPCC (a UN agency and process remember, and we all know their track record of successes, and we have blogged about it before on your blog) and with the selective use of science facts in their reports. Though complete, they leave out interpretations and data that have a bearing on the issue, for instance, in the TAR Technical Summary, they go to great pains to show the geological data on CO2, temps, and sea level variations, and then ignore all of it in the write-ups with no explanation, gold standard indeed.

As for my issues with the AGW hypothesis, we also have blogged on that, but let me summarize by quoting part of a preliminary draft (and under consideration by the members) statement of position by a large (30,000+) group of scientists, crafted by a distinguished panel which included Dr. Barron at UT. It states in part:

“Climate change has occurred throughout Earth history in response to changes in greenhouse gases, solar variations, orbital variations, volcanic eruptions, and a variety of other natural forcings. These changes have occurred on a variety of time scales and at magnitudes, which significantly exceed that predicted for the next century.

Humans, simply by virtue of the size of the world’s population, represent a new agent of change through our significant modifications related to land use, urbanization, industrial activity, and through changes in atmospheric composition related to fuel combustion and deforestation. The size and continued growth of the world’s population indicates that continued change to the planet is inevitable.

Climate research provides a consistent view that agents that increase incoming energy (an increase in the solar output) or act to selectively absorb outgoing energy (a greenhouse gas) will promote warming at a global level. Today’s climate is a product of several contributing factors, including greenhouse gases, solar variations, volcanism and aerosol production. Since the middle to late 19th century the sum of these factors have promoted a warmer climate. Climate models predict additional warming at a global scale. All scientists will gain more confidence in the predictive ability of climate models as they become better able to model past and present climate conditions. However, the impacts of greatest potential concern to humans (including the rate and magnitude of change and its regional expression of severe weather events, drought tendencies, weather variability, and sea-level rise) are very difficult to accurately predict.”

That pretty well sums up my views, which of course is at odds with yours Dr. D. I contend we simply have a difference in viewpoints on the scientific data. I tend to be more comfortable with the long time series of complete data in earth’s climate history and the huge number of factors (and thus the current changes are miniscule and not a big concern to me), you tend to like the short term climatologically based data with a reliance on CO2 as the primary problem, thus you are very concerned for the earth’s survival.

So why can’t we just say we disagree on scientific grounds instead of you attempting to discredit me and thus any “monumentally misinformed” info I may use?

As for attending the “presentation”, I’m afraid the format, purpose, and venue are not to my liking, and I will be across South Main at that time watching and cheering for a fine, dedicated, and talented group of student-athletes starting what I hope is the quest for another national title in baseball.

Dr. J. – “You have me beat in climate science publications Dr., but you also know climatology is but one of many scientific fields that should be used to examine the AGW hypothesis, wouldn’t you agree? It seems the questioning at the Texas legislature you provided mentioned many scientific fields (geology, paleoclimatology, paleontology, etc.) you have not published in, eh?”

I know you’ve probably gone into it before, but I apparently missed it. What are your credentials related to climate science? Can you provide links to your peer reviewed pubs on same? Thanx

Mark UK, as you know (but won’t admit apparently) Crichton is an MD, not just some “sci-fi” writer. Perhaps you are not aware of the rigorous academic and scientific education and training it takes to be an MD? I would venture a guess he has as much or more science education as anyone on Eric’s panel, so why is he unqualified to examine science facts and give his opinions and views of same?

Doug2, I’m afraid my peer reviewed publications were done long ago (before 1986, I am an old guy) and as you may know, the internet data bases are very limited as far as “ancient” documents in esoteric science publication go. Would you like for me to send Eric picture of my academic regalia and hood I wear at commencements, or pictures (name redacted of course) of my 4 university diplomas? I have stated I am not a climatologist, my education, research, and training encompassed geology, geophysics, paleoclimatology, stable isotope geochemistry, and several other areas of science and non-science too. But I do think I understand quite well what forces of nature create climate, its basic science actually, something my kids learned in middle school and most anyone can understand and comment on, in my opinion.

I don’t care what Crichton’s medical qualifications are. His opinions on the subject are either very badly informed or disohonest. The fact that he keeps bringing up these debunked non issues is tiring…

BTW, as this post also includes the subject of expanding the scope of SciGuy ala this first event

— have you guys considered creating a formal online Science section to go along with SciGuy?

I just note that what I am doing is this

— I am participating at your blog through out the day and night while running my business (which is of the sort that keeps me at my network “24/7″ managing client nets and, for example, looking for break time during long editing, art, 3D, Flash and special FX creation sessions)

— and yet, I am having to leave my chron SciGuy tab and visit a Science page I’ve concocted for myself to look up references for the discussion here as well keep track of my RSS science feeds, NASA TV, science vid postings at Youtube and TED and etc, the Journals, etc etc, you get the picture!

Now, what if I could come here and participate in the blog as well open new tabs with the stuff I just mentioned above? :^D :^D :^D

I mean, initially it could be that simple

— your readers don’t have to break off from the Chron page and go Google or go to their own collection pages and feed readers to get both SciGuy and a world-wide look at science for the day! :^D

Don’t know about Dr. D, but I agree with all but three words of Dr. J’s preliminary draft quotation: I wouldn’t lump “sea level rise” into a category of things whose “regional expression” is hard to predict. While there will be short-term regional variations, a rising sea floats all boats.

— I’ve suggested this before, but aren’t we losing sight of the probability that the massive “external” costs associated with using fossil fuels for energy

— as well as the massive increase in the cost of petroleum

— have made our existing energy infrastructure obsolete?

Eric recently pointed out in a post here at SciGuy that the global investment for refurbishing as well as expanding the world’s present energy infrastructure configuration will be in the trillions of dollars.

Now of course that’s the kind of money that would be sufficient to completely replace the fossil fuels infrastructure with the cleaner alternatives during the same time period.

And with those alternatives, we would not face the “false economy” or **illusion** of cheap energy created by the fact that most of the costs are externalized.

Eric, aren’t you afraid of any potential “fist-a-cuff”‘s that might result in or outside the discussion? I would hate to see hunter and Mark UK grappling on the Houston Museum floor, both trying to achieve the dominate position, while Tex tries to intervene just as Big John McCarthy of UFC would. This would be more likely with the BYOB factor in place.

Nah, I can’t make it. Anyway, Eric is right. People are very different in person than they are on these blogs, posting away. Very different… IANVS is really a hippy fundamentalist from Florida and tyler is a card carrying member of the Dawkins & Hitchens fan club…

Actually not Dr. n-g, you see sea level rise vs. tectonic earth uplift and/or isostatic rebound (as is occurring in numerous places around the world and its coasts today) is a complex area of study, so a rising sea level due to ice melting on land masses does not necessarily translate into all boats and docks and precious coastal infrastructure (as many have worried about being destroyed)rising or drowning or disappearing at once, so you see it is regional in effect and impossible to predict, and in an historic context miniscule compared to what has happened over the last 15,000 years. But I am glad you agree with the draft position statement, as will about 30,000 scientists who have seen it so far. It is a good piece of work, and lays out what is known and what is uncertain, but many I suspect many of the pro-AGW scientists will disagree with it’s scientific, objective tone and prefer a more strident, emotional hand wringing position.

Ttyler, yes my holiday was nice, and since I left the rain-soaked Houston area, the weather was grand. I am mostly talking about the scientific case, or lack thereof of course, for AGW here. The policy issues and the future economics and political issues are quite different. Someday fossil fuels will be replaced, the replacements will have to make economic sense to be viable, since massive subsidies, taxes, etc. are political suicide for even the left leaners. However, the practical energy security issues are much more viable as a reason for quicker change in my mind. The problem is the left leaners have no credibility here, since they are not strong on national defense or care about the Middle East except as a place to see in your rear view mirror. So, the left has to join forces with the right to make that happen, but I think it will, sooner or later. But don’t kid yourself, because of the massive, intense, expensive fossil fuel infrastructure we currently have, replacing it (unless with distributed energy sources perhaps)will be tremendously expensive, especially for transportation, and not likely to happen in your or Eric’s new baby’s lifetime.

Dr. J- I’ll agree with you about tectonic uplift or the occasional sudden subduction event, but isn’t regional isostatic rebound reasonably predictable on time scales of a few decades to a century, especially with the satellite altimetry record continuing to lengthen? Or were my Earth Science courses as oversimplified as most other introductory science courses?

P.S. The name of our intramural Earth and Planetary Sciences Dept. basketball team was the Post-Glacial Rebounders. Still one of my all-time favorite puns.

” … replacing it … will be tremendously expensive, especially for transportation ….”

Dr. J, Eric had already put a number on projected costs of refurbishing and expanding the current infrastructure, in the trillions of dollars.

In other words, these trillions are already gonna be spent, the money will be invested regardless.

I’m suggesting we use the **built-in** attrition and expansion dynamics to replace the older tech with the new tech.

For instance, rather than permit new coal burning power plants to replace older units on the Texas grid or to expand capacity, we permit nukes, solar, wind, geothermal etc. If need be, the state could incentivize the transition by providing some tax breaks and/or infrastructure packages for the initial group of new units.

Transportation-wise, as people and small businesses replace their current “30mpg” vehicles with new vehicles, we could encourage the purchase of the transitional hybrids and other clean energy types with various types of incentives

— eg, for a specified period of time, the state of Texas would forgo tax and license fees on the new purchase. [The revenue loss to the current budget could be covered by a pre-established set-aside account.]

We could likely accomplish this modest program here in Texas for an amount in public expenditure

— equal to the money our public “education” systems ***waste on football*** every year.

Dr. n-g, perhaps this textbook quote would help you calibrate the rates of isostacy with GW sea level rises:

“Seaports of hundreds of years ago may now be several kilometers inland and many meters above sea level!”

So, unless you think AGW or GW will cause sea level rises of several meters in say a century or two (very unlikely even Dr. D would say), this rate is much higher and though declining, is still quite pronounced in Scandinavia, the Baltic, and the Pacific coasts of Russia and the US.

Also Dr. n-g, tectonic uplift is not necessarily a sudden event, most of it takes place gradually over time. There are documented studies showing uplift occurring around the Pacific Basin (ring of fire, with, as you have said, many subduction zones that are very active) at the rates of 10 to 100 mm per year. Considering the slow current rate of sea level rise, tectonic events are not small in comparison. Again, taken together isostatic rebound and tectonic uplifts are certainly a large offset to GW sea level rises along many of the world’s coasts, therefore GW is not causing sea level disaster everywhere at the same rate.

Ttyler, I know that infrastructure has to be replaced, but much is very long lived, like pipelines which move crude, nat gas and products and thus contribute greatly to fossil fuel’s economic advantage over alternates especially for transport. I agree as alternates become economically viable, they should be preferred, and will be, but I state again that fossil fuels won’t be replaced by alternates in your, or Eric’s new baby’s lifetime. But I totally agree with you that we should take what UT, TAMU, and other state, tax supported colleges spend our money on football each year and divert it to true public service of developing alternate energy.

tyler – “— equal to the money our public “education” systems ***waste on football*** every year.”

Dr. J – “But I totally agree with you that we should take what UT, TAMU, and other state, tax supported colleges spend our money on football each year and divert it to true public service of developing alternate energy.”

Gasp! In Nebraska, where I grew up, as in Texas, football isn’t a waste, its a religion. Far more so than AGW ever hoped to be.

A little more seriously, though, isn’t it standard rationale that in big football schools, football brings in more money to the U than is spent on it?

— as an example, recently a group of local yokel wastoids at one of our north Harris county Texas public school districts dropped $80 million on a combination two-arena sports facility and conference center

— and my “poor little deprived school district” of Dickinson

—which has only a handful of schools, is always begging us for more money, and cut our local homestead exemption in half because it said it was going broke

Dr J.- My point is not that tectonics or isostacy are small, or global, but that we know them fairly well, certainly better than how much the Earth will warm or global sea level will rise in 100 years. Further, I agree that t&i (and the odd groundwater depletion/sediment diversion) are the primary factors responsible for regional changes in sea level. Thus, I still don’t agree with the statement that regional sea level changes will be harder to predict than global-scale warming.

Dr. n-g, in the sea level equation (that impacts coastal areas, not in the bulk of the oceans level as measured by satellites accurately but have no relevance to sea level rising to destroy humanity) there are two factors.

First is the rising ocean level due to the melting of land based ice and snow in excess of it’s freezing and being deposited back on land, the other is the rising of the land elevation due to geologic factors. Thus this equation, ocean level rise minus land level rise, equals what is important to humans, coast line rise.

Now one part of the equation, land level rise, is predictable and understandable within some comparatively narrow limits of variability and probability, whereas the other part of the equation (ocean level rise due to excess melting over ice and snow return) has too many degrees of freedom and large, unpredictable variables to be called “predictable”. Thus the all important sum of the equation, ocean rise minus land rise, is rendered unpredictable. That is the logic used here you see, or do you?

Oh, I see Dr. n-g, I missed the “harder” qualifier, sorry. Yes, I agree with you, regional and global changes are equally hard and incredibly difficult to predict and both are totally fraught with uncertainty. I will suggest alteration to our scientific position here for the association, thanks for clarifying.